RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1554, 17 February 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraidxnb—Tuesday, Feb. 15, 1887. [Before H. G. S. Bulaeley, Esq., R.M., the Rev. Q. Barclay, and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.’s.] ;; * , civil, cases. ' Judgment was given, by default in the following cases. t -- v , C. J. Foster v. Henry Jones—Clain £1 Is, professional fee. White, Smithson,, and Raymond ▼. John Bull — Claim. £4 4s, professional fees. '. . - ■ i'.‘ r j Same v. same—Claim 6d, pro* fessional fees. ■ : ; ' jkr F. Warner r. C. J. Pye, junr.—Claim £J, money lent. ': [ , THREATENING LANOUAOI. Charles Lyford was charged with nsinp threatening language to one Mary Inhocent, by threatening “ to do away with v her.” * Mr Raymond appeared for the plain ant. ; Mr Raymond said the facts of the easel were as follow :—The complainant was a spinster who had recently' arrived from Home, and had unr.il recently been en gaged as a domestic parvant in the Mac* keu zieCou d t ry. While there, she becazn# acquainted with accused, and they were

engaged to be married in a short time. The engagement was kept up for about six months, when complainant, finding out that accused was of ho intemperate character, broke off her engage moot. Some time afterwards ihe accused came to her again, end begged her to continue the engagement. She yielded to his persuasions, and they ngain kept company till October last, when, finding that accused was irrevocably bad, she gave him up, and since that time she bad re ceived nothing but inanlta from him. He had also sent bars letter which contained words to the effect of those set out in the information. About December last she had become engaged to a man named Mill, living at the Kakahu. When accused knsw this he became very enraged with both Mill and complainant, and said he would do away with thorn. Mill and Miss Innocent were to be married in the early part of this year, and accused bad left his employment and come to the Kakahu, giving as » reason that he was looking for a horse. A short time ago ho took from a person’s house a guo, and the neighbors, having heard that I “ate had been used against Mill, and f. .v r.g there was likely to be ■» row, resolved if possible to protect Mill, and therefore oue night they formed » sort of search party, and dogged the steps of accused. Towards the bieak of next morning they ssw him lying near Mill’s gate with a loaded gun. They j watched him, and saw him go at daylight and examine the footsteps at the gate, and apparently not finding things altogether i to his satisfaction he went away. After- I wards they intercepted him without the 1 gun, and asked him what he had done i with it, when he gave them a false i answer. The gun waa subsequently found in the crevice.of a rock. Accused 1 had on one occasion also violently | assaulted, complainant. From these facts i Mr Raymond contended that sufficient 1 warrant bad been given for the present I application for accused to be bound over 1 in substantial securities to keep the peace to complainant. Mary Innocent, the complainant, sworn, said that she waa a spineter, and that shortly after arriving in Now Zealand she was engaged: at Glentanner Station, where she became acquainted with accused, and had been engaged to him. \ She had twice broken it off on account of hia dissipated habits, the second and final time being in October, 1886. She since became engaged to a man named Mill. In December last she received a letter from accused, which she had destroyed; as she had then no idea of bringing the case into Court. In that letter be had ■aid if she did sot make it up with him and ■ accept him he would take care no one, else would, a« he wonld make away with her. She did not i take much notice of the letter, and since 1 that had only seen him once in the dis- i tance, when be was lurking about in the i shrubs round the house at Clayton ,■ Station, where she was engaged as domestic servant. She had seen nothing of him since till quite recently. Af'or < terminating her engagement at. Clay ton station the trap in which she was being driven to the railway station passed : accused on the road, when he threw a pebble at her, which struck the back of . the seat in the trap. She had al ways avoided him, fearing him, in consequence of what be had said". In consequence of what she had heard she had been obliged to bring the present aotion,aod she had i also been compelled to defer her ( marriage. 1 To the Bench s The “pebble 1 ” the | accused threw at me waa about as big as j my two bands. We told the police at i Fairlie Greek about the assault. Accused ' generally lives at Fairlie Creek. Andrew Samuelson, sworn, said he was i a resident of Kakahu, and lived close to Mill’s. He had known accused for about < three weeks. Accused was a stranger in ) Kakahu before that time. Retold wit- 1 ness be come there to look fpr a horse, 1 and that he (witness) shoald give Mill a little advice about complainant, of whom i ho made ail sorts of vilifying statements. J He also told witness that ho was waiting to get a chance at them, and would drop i tbsm, He (witnes' 1 ) was quite sure that was the conversation. *Richard Kierman, sworn, stated that , he bad known accused for the past 33 | years. He (witness) was a strangerio , the Kakahu district. He knew McDonald and stayed at bis place. He had been away at work, and when he came home he heard that accused had taken Clarke’s gun and gone shooting. In consequence of what the neighbors had heard of threats made by accused, they thought the gon bad been taken for some bad purpose. They therefore decided to form a search party, and about twelve o’clock eight of them started to look for accused. Six went by the. road, and ho (witness) and Clarke planted themselves by Mill’s gate to watch his house. Early in the morning they discovered accused close by. Mill’s gate. They watched him till daylight, when he got np and walked away with the gon under his arm. Clayke went along the road to apprise the others of his presence, and witness followed accused till he could follow him no further without being seen, Re thgn went round the hill, and met accused without the gun. Upon asking him what he bad. done with it, he said he had left it at McDonald’s whare, They afterwards found the gun in a crevice of a rock, where they let it remain till Constable Willoughby came and got it. Mill could hot have come., to hia house that way without being within three yards of accused. lo accused ; I have never known any- : thing against you before, or heard that you did any harm to anyone. To the Bench: 1 have not seen the : accused for the last ten years. When last I seen him be was working for his father at Nelson. Mrs McDonald gave evidence as to accused coming to her place and asking about Clarke's gun, which she told him not to.take, but which he did take. Constable Willoughby, sworn, stated that from information received he attested accused. He had been sent for on Saturday, 12th inst., the messenger: telling him a long tale about accused having taken Clarke's gun, and his watch,-; ing for Mill to shoot him. He had been: shown the gun in a rock about a hundred; yards from Mill's gate. It was loaded, Had taken the gun and removed the cap.; Followed where be thought the accused! bad gone,< and‘told him he irspted tdqv for stealing the gun. Accused said he toui put it back in the whare, and when witness told him ih&cotild not have done so, as he bad found it in the rock,: accused said h» had forgotten.

Accused, upon being asked what he bad to say, stated that he had never threatened the woman’s life, or anyone else’s. He went over to Clayton station for some things of his that she had. He had since asked Mill for them, who had promised he should have them. His Worship said there was not the slightest difference of opinion but that the charge was clearly proved. Accused was » very dangerous mau indeed when he was roused, and believed he had reason to be jealous. He had acted iu a moat cowardly manner, and after vilifying the complainant had expressed the greatest anxiety to have her. The charge had been laid as a very light one, but a much more serious charge could have been brought agiiust. him. Ha could consider J himself a very lucky man that a much graver charge had not been brought against him. Accused was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months, himself in £25, and two sureties of £25 each, in default of sureties to go to gaol lor 12 months. LABOBNT.The accused was then charged with stealing a gun of the value of £3 from George Clarke, of Kakaqu. The evidence led was somewhat similar to the last case, with the addition of George Clarke’s, who deposed to accused coming to him and requesting the loan of the gun, which he refused, and to the gun being gone when he' returned from work. The Bench decided that the charge of attempt to steal could not be upheld ; it had not been taken with a felonious intent. In dismissing accused of the second charge, His Worship gave him a severe lecture, stating that the Bench were perfectly convinced that the gun had been taken for a far more serious purpose than that of stealing it. Accused could consider it exceedingly fortunate for him that the neighbors had acted as they did, The course they took showed their good sense. The Court then adjourned. Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1887. [Before R, H. Pearpoint, Esq., J.P.] DRUNKENNESS. James Nicholas was brought up charged with the above effance, and fined sa.

TEMUKA.

Wednesday, Feb. 16,1887. [Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASE. H. Nicholson v. W. Oorlet—Claim £2O 10a, dishonored .promissory note. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and objected to the evidence of the defendant taken in Wellington being admitted. The facts as regarded the evidence were that the case was set down for hearing on the sth of January in Temuka, when it was adjourned for the purpose of having the defendants evidence taken on the 21st of January in Wellington. On that day neither plaintiff nor defendant appeared in Wellington, and the case was struck out. It was again set down for hearing in Temuka on January 26th, but His Worship was not present, and' it hud to bo adjourned to the 9th of February, when His Worship was again absent, and it was further adjourned to yesterday. In the meantime Mr Jellicoe, coußsel for the defendant, had the defendant’s evi- , dehce to be taken in Wellington, without ; giving any notice to the plaintiff, and on this ground'no notice had been given. | Mr Aspinall contended that the evidence ; was not admissible. The Court held the evidence was not ; admissible. i H. Nicholson stated the amount i claimed was due to him. The defendant , gave a promissory note for £2O 10a to i Mr Aspinall, and witness endorsed it and ; had to pay it. He had Qther transactions | with the defendant, who had paid him another bill of £6O, but the amount sued j for was not part of it. Judgment was given for the amount j claimed and costs. i MAINTENANCE OttDERS. Mrs Gill appeared before the Court to complain that her husband bad not complied with the order of the Court, inasr ; much as that he bad neglected to pay the > amount the Court ordered him to pay towards her maintenance. His Worship directed the police to arrest the husband every time he neglected to pay, Mr Hatnersley, who appeared on behalf of Mrs Henderson, said that an order had been made on the 11th of June, 1885, by two Juetices, that her husband should contribute £1 per week towards her support. Jt appeared now the order was a nullity, as Justices had no jurisdic: tion in such cases, acd he asked His Worship for a fresh order. Mr Tosswill said he had been instructed by Messrs Ward and Cresswell, pf Gisborne, to appear for IVfr Henderson. He submitted His Worship could not make an ord,er without an information wpa laid in the usual way. Mr Hajnersley held that he could pro r coediunder the Mamed Women’s Property Act, The Court could ipake an order under this, and if the husband l}ad any grounds, of defence he cpuid upset the order after 10 days. The Court agreed to adopt this course . Mary Henderson deposed that she was the wife of William Henderson. He laft her two years last September. Ha was vary cruel to her before he left. He sent her £5 six weeks after he left, aud be wanted her to go to him. He never sent anytbjng since, He wrote to her saying he heard she had tajren opt p for him, but he wpuld wait fill the clouds rolled , by. She bad one child, and she was trying to support herself and the child as best she could, The Court made .an , order giving her protection over her own earnings, also custody of the child until she waslftyeari of age, h o r husbaud to pay her lf|a per week or go to gaol;the order to date from the let January, 1887. The Court then adjmuned.